Next Generation Fire Test Burner for Powerplant Fire ... Burner for Powerplant Fire Testing...

Federal Aviation Administration

Next Generation Fire

Test Burner for

Powerplant Fire

Testing Applications

Steve Summer

Steve Rehn


Fire Safety Branch

http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov

International Aircraft Systems Fire

Protection Working Group

Atlantic City, NJ

November 1 – 2, 2017


Powerplants Fire Test Development

November 1, 2017

Background

• Currently specified oil burners are no longer commercially

available

• Industry is utilizing legacy oil and propane burners

• Propane burner has been shown to be less severe than an

engine flammable fluid flame

• New Technology Sonic Burner developed and approved for

use in interior and fuselage testing.

– Sonic Burner provides numerous advantages to legacy burners

• FAA Tech Center Fire Safety Branch has been tasked by

Transport Standards Branch (TSB) to develop burner

performance standards for the next-generation fire test burner

for powerplant fire testing

– New burner should be much easier to calibrate, provide more

consistent results, and be readily available for industry use.

2



November 1, 2017 3

Task Group:

Sonic Burner Implementation

POC: S. Summer, S. Rehn

Task Group:

Regulatory Document(s) Update

(Authorities only)

POC: S. Johnson

Task Group:

AC 20-135 – Industry

Recommendations

POC: J. Ostic, P. Dang

Sub-Group A: • Burner/Flame Temperature

• Calibration Method

• TC’s (size, type, number)

• Environment/Operating

Conditions


Sub-Group B: • Post-test Burning/Backside

Ignition

• Pass/Fail Criteria

POC: D. Laborie

Sub-Group C: • Definition of Fireproof/Fire-

Resistant

• Test Panel Size

POC: S. Pugliese



November 1, 2017

Current Status - Testing

• Previous round robin consisted of aluminum,

PAN and copper slug calorimeter

• Searching for additional non-metallic

materials to test in a round robin with

objectives of

– Utilizing results to ensure proper settings of sonic

burner

– Ensure consistency of testing within lab using sonic

burner

– Ensure repeatability across burners at various labs

4



November 1, 2017

Materials Previously Evaluated

• 10-ply carbon composite

• Carbon Fiber – 1-ply, 2-ply & 3-ply

• Fiberglass – 1-ply, 2-ply & 3-ply

• Garolite

• ¼” Honeycomb Panel

• Fiberglass cargo liner

All shown to not be suitable for round-robin testing

5



November 1, 2017

Burner Settings

• Nozzle: 80° B 2.0 gph

• Flow-checked 2.00 gph @ 102 psi

• Air Pressure: 50 psi

• Copper Tube Heat Flux (3 test average): 5111.3 Btu/hr

• Temperature check (first 3 tests with brand new 1/8”

exposed-bead

thermocouples



November 1, 2017

Composite Tests

• 0.060” FR4 Glass Epoxy

– Flame resistant material used in

printed circuit boards

• Did not burn through after

15:00



November 1, 2017

Composite Tests • 0.007” 1-Ply Unidirectional Carbon Fiber

• Burn-through times*:

• *Material split along grain in first few seconds, but the test was

continued hoping that the fibers would burn through.

• *Fibers did not actually burn through, they just became

unclamped from the top

• Material is unsuitable for round robin testing

Test 1 7:35

Test 2 6:36

Test 3 9:34



November 1, 2017

Resonate Testing

• Composite panels supplied by Bombardier/Shorts

– 2 plies (0/45), roughly 0.030 thick

• Burner calibrated to minimum avg of 2000F across 7

T/C’s, Heat Flux >4500 btu/hr

– stabilized on Cu tube for 1 minute

• Total of 6 panels tested

– 3 with vibration applied at differing times during test

– 1 with no vibration

– 1 with a bolt installed in the middle

– 1 with bolt installed with a 5 kg weight applied in tension

9



November 1, 2017 10

Resonate Testing



November 1, 2017 11

Resonate Testing



November 1, 2017 12

Resonate Testing



November 1, 2017 13

Resonate Testing



November 1, 2017 14

Resonate Testing



November 1, 2017

Resonate Testing

15

Test 6

TEMP (min Avg)

BTU/HrBurnthrough

TIME

Vibration

applied @Summary Comment

Panel 1 2025 4696 00:27:16 20:20 Wednesday Afternoon.

Panel 2 2010 4606 00:25:18 20:20 Wednesday Afternoon.

Thursday Morning

Applied vibration has no

impact?

Thursday Afternoon

Increased BTU does not

significantly affect

burnthrough time

Panel 5 2035 4720 0:20:00 Bolt installed in center of

panel

1 week later returned with new

approach.

Stopped test- Bolt making no impact

Panel 6 2019 4839 0:22:34Bolt installed in center of

panel with a 5kg load Pull through eventually achieved!

No Vibe

Vibration applied in the expection of

generating expeditated Burnthrough- No

significant impact observed.

Vibration 4G applied from start. NO

IMPACT- Vibration discontinued.

Excess Flame temp and BTU/hr applied.

NO IMPACT.

Panel 4 2116 5234 0:24:45

Panel 3 2011 4641 00:26:30 00:00

Test 4 Flame artificially high, no significant impact.

Test 6 Pull Through load, no significant impact.



November 1, 2017

Composite Testing - Next Steps/Questions

• Bombardier (Shorts) will continue to support

provision of the material panels: the definition to be

agreed.

• Is burnthrough the proper measure of failure for this

type of material? How else can we measure failure?

• It is possible that composite materials are just not

suitable for round robin testing, and other options

need to be explored.

– Felt Materials (Nomex, Kevlar, PAN)

– Varying thickness of aluminum

– ???

16



November 1, 2017

Aluminum Panel Tests

• Questions arose during some Task Group

meetings regarding aluminum burnthrough

times

• Standards refer to aluminum as being fire-

resistant (i.e. burnthrough >5mins)

• Strong desire from group to ensure that

NexGen burner maintains this definition.

17



November 1, 2017

Aluminum Tests

• 0.125” 2024-T3 Aluminum

• No repeatability with 50 psi air pressure

• Very repeatable with 40 psi air pressure

00:00

05:00

10:00

15:00

20:00

25:00

1 2 3 4 5 6

Bu

rn-T

hro

ugh

Tim

e (m

in:s

ec)

Test Number

0.125" Aluminum, 2.0 gph Fuel, 50 psi Air

00:00

01:00

02:00

03:00

04:00

05:00

06:00

07:00

08:00

1 2 3

Bu

rn-T

hro

ugh

Tim

e (m

in:s

ec)

Test Number

0.125" Aluminum, 2.0 gph Fuel, 40 psi Air



November 1, 2017

Air Pressure Comparison • 50 psi air had highest temperatures in previous

testing

• Copper tube heat flux was relatively constant

• 40 psi air had highest copper slug heat flux

• Copper slug correlated best to aluminum burn-

through times

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

40 45 50

Hea

t Fl

ux

(Btu

/hr)

Air Pressure (psi)

Cu Tube Heat Flux - 2.0 gph fuel

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

40 45 50

Hea

t Fl

ux

(W/c

m2)

Air Pressure (psi)

Cu Slug Heat Flux - 2.0 gph fuel



November 1, 2017 20

Task Group:

Sonic Burner Implementation

POC: S. Summer, S. Rehn

Task Group:

Regulatory Document(s) Update

(Authorities only)

POC: S. Johnson

Task Group:

AC 20-135 – Industry

Recommendations


Sub-Group A: • Burner/Flame Temperature

• Calibration Method

• TC’s (size, type, number)

• Environment/Operating

Conditions


Sub-Group B: • Post-test Burning/Backside

Ignition

• Pass/Fail Criteria

POC: D. Laborie

Sub-Group C: • Definition of Fireproof/Fire-

Resistant

• Test Panel Size

POC: S. Pugliese



November 1, 2017

Current Status - Regulatory

• Draft policy memo regarding the use of the

Propane Burner (mentioned at May meeting)

– It has been decided to instead address this issue

through a change to AC 20-135.

– Anticipated release for public comment by end of

year.

• Continued effort to address industry

concerns and harmonize with international

authorities.

21



November 1, 2017

Current Status - Regulatory

• Flame Temperature Calibration

– Issue from industry was brought forth regarding the

flame temperature requirement

– Current requirement is a minimum average of 2000F

across 7 T/Cs

• Tolerance on each individual T/C of ±150F

– This is a shift from the past requirement of an average

flame temperature of 2000±150F

– TSB reviewed history of flame temperature

requirement in attempt for a better understanding of

changes and when/why they occurred.

22



November 1, 2017 23



November 1, 2017

• TSB conclusion was “The FAA has not changed our

definition of the test flame. We have always intended

the definition of fireproof to be 2000F.”

• Discussions surrounding appropriate flame

calibration continue within industry group.

– Flame temperature

– Flame Heat Flux

– Standardized measurement methodology

• Industry group to provide recommendation and

substantiation data to authorities for review.

24



November 1, 2017

Questions?

Contact Information:

Steve Summer

609-485-4138

[email protected]

Steve Rehn

609-485-5587

[email protected]

25

Next Generation Fire Test Burner for Powerplant Fire ... Burner for Powerplant Fire Testing...

Documents

Transcript of Next Generation Fire Test Burner for Powerplant Fire ... Burner for Powerplant Fire Testing...